Archive Sections: letters | music | index | features | photos | arts/lit | satire Find Iranian singles today!
Ideas

Rejecting all
Rejecting the Islamic Republic of Iran in its entirety

 

November 23, 2005
iranian.com

The various alternatives of The Islamic Republic of Iran (factions or the opposition), are the different bottles for the same wine; it is not worth changing the bottle, because by contrast with this accommodating proposition, it is in all its development the same wine, made by the same material.

In fact during the last century, the bottle was renewed by Islamic political movements, the new shape of Islam appeared, the one that now claims the alleged legitimate appeal for power.

The Islamism, as recently appeared, goes back to Egypt in the 1920s, when an organisation called the Muslim Brothers emerged at first.

The plague of the IRI cannot be reduced, however, to the ambitions of this organisation, nor can it be attributed after all to a system of ideology of this first organisation, but can be connected to a framework of ideology promoting a very authoritarian system based on the creed of Shiite sect.

Obviously some of the rulers of the IRI could be more or less reactionary, fundamentalist or criminal, the difference between them is only their methods to prolong parasite's life of the system.

“Al-Islam w'l-dawla” can never be adapted to the needs of modern societies. No difference is important that the name of the leader is Caliph, Amir, Vali or etc.

The legitimacy of such a leader is a choice of “God”, It means that there is not absolute separation between the Islam and the state or in their interpretation; “al-Islam w'l-dawla". 

For all Muslims, of course, “al-Islam” cannot contain error and cannot be eliminated or to be modified by the new ideas.  Furthermore for all Islamists “al-dawla” can be applied to any circumstances with no temporal and geographic border.  Therefore there is a combination of the “al-Islam w'l-dawla” which is the only solution for the cause of humanity. 

Some Islamists or “Islamic Intellectuals” invented a presumptuous methodology, which can be used to patch some of the koranic Surahs with the modern terms.

Our “Islamic Intellectuals” have learned to clothe their theory in a more acceptable language.  They attempt to rewrite "al-Islam" with the modern scientific phenomena as the evolution, General Relativity, Aerodynamic, Quantum Mechanics or more grotesquely with the theories and concepts that treat human problems as sex equality, socialism, democracy, and etc.

Despite that the Islamic revolution of Khomeini failed, the Islamic radicalism of which it was a projection, continues to be an aggressive ideology and imposes problems for the entire world.

The first historic successes of “Dar-al-Islam” were only possible by the radical methods that always provide reasons for the Islamic terror, while dividing the world in “Dar-al-Islam” against “Dar-al-kufr” or the house of Islam against the house of infidels.

The IRI must appreciate the supposition of the Western governments that they do not consider this radicalism as an important danger and that they insist that the new enemy after the fall of the “evil Soviets” is not the Islamic ideology, but simply an extreme radical wing of Islam. 

Even Bush, on behalf of the corrupt Islamic rulers and interests of the US oil-companies, including people in his administration, says on a lot of occasions “the Islam as practiced by the vast majority of Islamic countries is a peaceful religion”. He does not mind if the Islamic states oppress or force their own people to keep silent.

The Islamic countries as the two pro-American (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and the IRI consider the blasphemy as an offence against God or the Islamic ruling class.  The people being accused to commit this sin can be executed.

The execution of many thousands of Iranian political prisoners in summer of 1988, by a Khomeini’s fatwa is one of the bloodiest prison-purges after the Concentration Camps under the Nazis.

The Islamic faith which was the political cradle of a unified Islamic Ummah is now turned into the state ideology causing dispersion among societies who live under the yoke of the Islamic states, where the faith cannot be a personal choice without consequences.

Islam as a symbol of Iranian identity, and specifically as a political system, has never been accepted by the majority of Iranian people nor secular political parties--except by Tudeh Party.

The Tude Party was founded in 1920. The party, as the pioneer of complaisant attitude in the recent history, has been an unconditional follower to the Big-Brother. It makes no difference if the Big-Brother was Stalin or Krouchev or Gorbachev, the party was alwayshostage to the political whims of the Soviets' interests in Iran. The party proudly collaborated with the IRI to identify and to arrest the regime’s opponents.

Later, despite their fervour for their “Imam”, their “haram” label of Marxism and secularism sent them to the “halal” prison of the regime, where many of the party’s members were among the victims of IRI’s brutality.

The party, as an old habit and despite the slap received, always supports the different factions of the IRI, namely in the last presidential elections, the party supported in the first round the approved candidate of the IRI, Moein, and then in the second round switched to Rafsanjani.  The Tudeh Party does not symbolise socialism for the political culture in Iran.  That applies also to the IRI that cannot represent Iran.

Islam has never been accepted by the Iranians at the same level as in the Arabic, Islamic world. Islam for most of the Iranians, even Muslim, has never represented national feelings of pride, glory and particularly the Iranian identity—rather; it represents (in the consciousness of most Iranians) a shadow of their previous slave state less than two centuries of the Iranian occupation by the Islamic troops.  Islam incorporates a reminiscence of genocide devoted during this period. 

Islam means a loss of a real identity by a forged substitute imposed by yoke of subjugation from early Islamic ruling class. Islam is associated with the painful feeling that Persia was once a great power that had challenged Greece and Rome. But it was defeated by the Islamic invaders in AD 637. It never made up for that defeat again. People’s consciousness about Islam began with that defeat. It gave a special edge to the history in Iran.

All the history of ancient Persia has ceased to matter, and a forced identity was imposed upon the people. Being an Iranian was to have an imposed faith, a version of the Arab Islam.

The Islam was more than a descriptive religion. In the minds of Iranians it was a political concept. It stood for aggression. It stood for self-alienation on the side of victims, for estrangement from one's own past concept.

However the forced converts have a special psychological process in the course of Iranian history. They became converts under great pressure; but subsequently they solved the problem by pretending that their conversion had been voluntary. Their forefathers had been defeated and humiliated; but they overcame this feeling by identifying themselves with the victors and the aggressors. Even after conversion the pressure continued. They tried to prove they were more loyal than the aggressors.  They became ardent champions and standard-bearers of Islam. They promoted Islam into Schism in Iran, they thought the Arabs were not sufficiently Muslims, and finally it became Iran's manifest destiny to keep Islam's flag aloft to hold Islam on the scene. The Islamic Republic of Iran, with all its factions and Islamic opposition, embodies this historical process in Iran,

As the carrier of Islam’s flag, the IRI is conceptually challenging democracy, human rights, social and sexual equality, security, happiness, entertainment, modernity and progress. Its existence consequently is a contradiction to any stride toward establishing a democratic system.

“Al-Islam w’l-dawla", represented now by the IRI’s rulers and all its relics, tries to isolate the Iranians from democratic ideas, and they claim that Islam alone is the political and legitimate system to govern. 

Although there isno doubt that those officials that exercise the  key posts are the most aggressive ones, and try to take more advantage of their positions, the difference between all the IRI's cliques is the degree of their individual engagement in the establishment of the IRI during its parasite life. From each clique a certain number of people bear visible scars.

While, democracy, modernity and progress flourished in some societies, during the last three centuries Muslim countries were agonising under colonial powers, despotic kings and especially their traditional religion: religion as the major obstacle against democracy, modernity and progress, that all could construct a sturdy bastion against a Renaissance in the Islamic world.

 No Islamic society has a history of local democracy. Any Islamic state, whether in Iran or Saudi-Arabia (under name of Wahabi),  Pakistan under military rulers, Somalia ,  Afghanistan (under name of Taliban or North Alliance) is a monolith of different forms, or the same wine in different bottles, creating the most problems for their own peoples.

The constitution of the IRI is the first of its kind which refers to obsolete models of medieval Islamic Ummah, which had been already inspired from the most primitive nomadic life of Arabia. The constitution is a projection of primitive life from that period.

This medieval constitution creates conflicting arbitrary structures and positions, which are incompatible with democracy, modernity and progress. It is irreparably lacking in tenets and practices of people's needs. It rejects pluralism as the first step toward democracy, and contains totalitarian ideology of the early Islamic ruling class, which promotes the IRI into a terror state.

Today, as expressed by the Islamic authorities, the IRI publicly recruits volunteers to train them for acts of terrorism. Their brainwashed Jihadists must fight to defend the cause of "al-Islam w'l dawla“worldwide to kill and to be killed.

Terror will increase in all levels in Iran.  The first victims of the IRI's eager killers are freedom-loving Iranians, whether the victims agree with the IRI's tenets or not.  By focusing on other issues, the international community does not pay enough attention to the systematic violation of human rights in Iran.

Always closely connected with a dream of a miracle, a few pioneers of Islamic "Salvation Army" strive to rescue their IRI. The illusion is repeated for centuries, or in a classical line of argument; Islam as a school of thought is so perfect that our leaders do not understand it; therefore we should find some modern thinkers who can finally understand it. 

The IRI’s faction and opposition keep their loyalty to their origin, by referring occasionally to the Islamic constitution; they softly oppose the intolerant policies of government officials. One of the main IRI’s factions is the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organisation, which has not only been the ideologue and occasionally the government members, but also the active instrument of the IRI’s repression. It is one of the founders of the Islamic Revolutionary Committees and the Ministry of Intelligence.

The principal Islamic opposition in Iran is the “reformist” Freedom Movement. The movement is a former collaborator of the IRI, which is now booted out by some rival officials. Besides their “inside-critics” on some problems of the society, their devotion to the IRI and their “Imam” is more conceivable than their vision for the reforms.

The Islamists' hysteria towards the Western culture has roots in its typical, religious tendencies of backwardness, but not its attachment to one's national identity. This is the reason that anti-Western people such as. Al-e-Ahmad, Soroush, Shariati, etc, are the ideological pillars of the IRI and its relics. Their success in the recruitment of blind followers is an alarm for Iranian intelligentsia and a danger of backwardness for the country.

These “Islamic intellectuals”, especiallyAl-e-Ahmad, were confusedly taken into a labyrinth of their deliria.  Although they tried to identify themselves as “modernists”, butintheir pan-Islamism the supremacy of technology seems ultimately a synonym to an anti-Islamic sin.

Are these “Islamic intellectuals”, as Shariati and Soroush, able to propose a solution to the crisis of the IRI?  Is the Shariati’s separation of the “core-Islam” from the “tradition-Islam”, or the good Islam from the bad Islam a necessary solution? 

The rational answer to these dreamers may be a counter-question. Is their alternative Islam the only school of thought that can solve the sober problems of modern mankind?

The solutions, proposed by these salvagers of Islam, are not the result of their understanding of the entire problem or of their sympathy for the suffering people, but rather are rooted in their blind faith. These kinds of solutions, as the tactical revaluations of the IRI, are rejected by the Iranian intelligentsia and also by a growing majority of Iranians.

All the Islamic currents ultimately blow the same wind. These “Islamic intellectuals” show only their inabilities to realise the facts that the last few thousand years were years of developing religions. But the new era would see another struggle, the struggle of trying to rediscover their self-respect. It is going to be an important struggle, the struggle of the new era. The struggle is already on. Though it does not have a name yet, but it is the opposite of any form of conventional religions.

In reality the majority of the Iranians are the former disappointed Muslims or “less” Muslims. The secular popular tendency for a solution of the crisis is not to be linked up with the alternative Islamic solutions.  Most people want a sweeping change.  It means that the entire system should be replaced by a secular and democratic system.  The problem of how this new system can be attained is another subject on the shoulder of all secular democratic opposition. 

Any kind of cooperation with the IRI, from any side, is a violation to Iranian people’s dignity and all values of humanity. The question of Iran's nuclear and terrorism record is not a precondition of the IRI’s legitimacy. The IRI, because of its anti-human nature, must be condemned.

The IRI including its entire relics is a parasite. This is a thorn with no rose, a painful thorn in the eye of humanity. It is directly engaged in a lot of crimes against humanity, and worldwide abhorred by all democratic and progressive people.  This is directly responsible for terror, corruption, poverty, misogyny, socio-economic backwardness and many other social and cultural problems in Iran.

The industrialised countries should cut diplomatic relations with the IRI and impose trade sanctions (except for medicines and foods). All international companies should be forbidden from trading with the IRI.

The sanctions, especially on oil that is almost 80 percent of the IRI’s export, will paralyse the corrupt system in Iran, and all these conditions will help people to get rid of the IRI.

The IRI is loudly rejected by a growing majority of the Iranians who look for a normal, better and modern way of life.

The parasitic life of the IRI is extended by its army, Revolutionary Guards, basidjis, jihadists and thugs of street fighters. It has many official manners and labyrinthine ways, institutions and the mercenaries, committing any sort of crimes without scruples to keep the dying regime alive.

Its parasitic life is also permitted by the ruptures among democratic forces of opposition, which is another great topic.

COMMENT
For letters section
To: Jahanshah Rashidian

ALSO
Jahanshah Rashidian
Features

RELATED
Diaspora

Opinion

Book of the day
mage.com

The Pursuit of Pleasure
Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500-1900
by Rudi Matthee

Copyright 1995-2013, Iranian LLC.   |    User Agreement and Privacy Policy   |    Rights and Permissions